alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00130-CV

ANGELA ALLEN AS THE DEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR

OF THE ESTATE OF TRICIA L. APPLETON, DECEASED,

DAVID N. APPLETON, JR., D.A., A.A., G.L.A., S.A.,B.A.,

CHILDREN, AND INTERVENOR, PACIFIC 

EMPLOYERS INS. CO.,

Appellants

v.

TAYLOR TRUCKING SAND & GRAVEL, 

BRYAN C. TAYLOR, MACK TRUCKS, INC., AND 

FIREMAN'S FUND COUNTY MUTUAL,

Appellees

From the 413th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. C2002-00328

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Angela Allen, as the Dependent Administrator for the Estate of Tricia 

L. Appleton, Deceased, David N. Appleton, Jr., D.A., A.A., G.L.A., S.A., B.A., Children, 

and Intervenor, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, filed an unopposed motion to 
Allen v. Taylor Trucking Sand & Gravel Page 2

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellants no longer wish to pursue 

the appeal. Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to 

which it would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 28, 2015

[CV06]
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 19 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-171097) and Amendment No. 309 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.













 


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


December 27, 2016
# C_2021044EN.01003904.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta — Spain) — JF, KG v Bankia SA

(Case C-482/19) (1)

(2021/C 44/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
#### Clifton Steel Corporation, Respondent, v County of Monroe Public Works Department et al., Defendants, Robert F. Hyland & Sons, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, and Morin Building Products Company, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Morin Building Products Company, Inc., Appellant, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

— Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the order and judgment for reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court (Cornelius, J.). We add only that we have examined the arguments of defendant, Morin Building Products Company, Inc., concerning the propriety of evidentiary rulings made by the trial court and find those arguments to be lacking in merit. (Appeals from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — Breach of Contract.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00632-CR

Troy Anthony Jenkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2012-504, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Troy Anthony Jenkins, who has not yet been finally sentenced, has filed a notice of

appeal of the trial court’s order denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. We do not have

jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal.

In Texas, appeals in a criminal case are permitted only when they are specifically

authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see

Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (“[A] defendant’s right of appeal is

a statutorily created right.”). The standard for determining whether an appellate court has

jurisdiction to hear and determine a case “is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether

the appeal is authorized by law.” Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

(quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)); State ex rel. Lykos,

330 S.W.3d at 915. Thus, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutoryorders
unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Ex parte Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 844 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no

pet.). No such grant exists for a defendant’s direct appeal of an interlocutory order denying a pretrial

motion to suppress. See Dahlem v. State, 322 S.W.3d 685, 691 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. 1

ref’d) (no statute or rule allows defendants to appeal interlocutory orders denying motions to

suppress); Jaramillo v. State, No. 13-09-00545-CR, 2009 WL 4918768, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi Dec. 21, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (even if written order

denying motion to suppress had been in record, order denying motion to suppress was interlocutory

order that was not appealable); Cochran v. State, No. 08-02-00395-CR, 2002 WL 31431487, at *1

(Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 31, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (concluding

that court lacked jurisdiction because denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence is not

immediately appealable).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 25, 2013

Do Not Publish

We note that the State is entitled to appeal an order granting a pretrial motion to suppress 1

evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(a)(5). However, no such corresponding provision

entitles a defendant to appeal the denial of such a motion. See id. art. 44.02.

2
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Salem, Virginia

LILLIE KELLY RICE MATTOX MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1137-95-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JULY 2, 1996 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY William N. Alexander, II, Judge Robert Bryan Haskins (Turner, Haskins & Whitfield, P.L.C., on brief), for appellant. Steven A. Witmer, Assistant Attorney General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. Lillie Kelly Rice Mattox was convicted in a bench trial on two counts of fraudulently obtaining public assistance in violation of Code § 63.1-124. On appeal, Mattox contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. We disagree. "Intent is the purpose formed in a person's mind which may, and often must, be inferred from the facts and circumstances in a particular case." Sandoval v. Commonwealth , 20 Va. App. 133, 137, 455 S.E.2d 730, 732 (1995); Ridley v. Commonwealth , 219 Va. 834, 836, 252 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1979). The trial judge, as fact finder, specifically found the testimony of the Commonwealth's witness, Ms. Dodd, to be reliable. "The weight which should be- 2 - given to evidence and whether the testimony of a witness is credible are questions which the fact finder must decide. Bridgeman v. Commonwealth , 3 Va. App. 523, 528, 351 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1986). Upon review of the record, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom, we cannot say that the ruling below was plainly wrong or unsupported by the

evidence. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed.

Affirmed.
1

Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 4:59 PM

To: roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov; Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov)

Cc: steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; 

joanna.seto@doh.hawaii.gov; Lovgren, Andrew C LT NAVSUP, 700; Shimabuku, June T. CIV 

NAVFAC HI, EV4; Nakamura, Peter M CIV NAVFAC HI, EV1; Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC 

HI, OPHE3; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Linder, Steven; Pallarino, Bob

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - September 16, 2014

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of September 16, 2014.  In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will

be annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan  

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1 ‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2  ‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP‐8 free product is unknown.  Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration.  This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination.  Prepare models for petroleum JP‐8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.   

No change.

c. Action 3 ‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP‐8 free product.  Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.   

No change.

d. Action 4 ‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex.  This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.  

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

d.(1)  Sentinel Wells

Navy contractors continued drilling operations to install two new groundwater monitoring wells north of the Red Hill

Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.

d.(2)  Site Characterization  
2

The Navy is awaiting DOH/EPA written comments on the Draft Work Plan/ Sampling and Analysis Plan for Tank 5 Area

Characterization of July 2014.   

d.(3)  AOC/SOW  

No change.

d.(4)  Request for Additional Information  

The Navy continued to provide to the DOH and EPA via email the specific Red Hill information requested in DOH email of

August 1, 2014.

d.(5) Weekly Telephone Conference Calls

The telephone conference call scheduled for September 12, 2014 was cancelled by EPA.  The next telephone conference

call will be held on September 19, 2014.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Vr,

Aaron
**Exhibit 31.02**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Dennis E. Bunday, certifythat:

     1. I have reviewed this report onForm 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.;

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

     a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
# C_2018341EN.01002601.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/26

---

Action brought on 30 July 2018 — Audimas v EUIPO — Audi (AUDIMAS)

(Case T-467/18)

(2018/C 341/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Audimas AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: G. Domkutė-Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Figurative trade mark AUDIMAS, which is the subject of an international registration designating the European Union — International registration designating the European Union No 1 251 000

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2018 in Case R 2425/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and maintain registration No 1 251 000 of the applicant’s trade mark ‘AUDIMAS’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 of the Nice Classification; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and maintain registration No 1 251 000 of the applicant’s trade mark ‘AUDIMAS’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 of the Nice Classification;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (if that party should intervene in the present proceedings) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (if that party should intervene in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 21


         The following were the registrant's subsidiaries as of December 31,
1998, other than subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary at such date:


NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                             JURISDICTION
                                                                    OF
                                                               INCORPORATION


Chris-Craft Television, Inc.                                     Delaware

         BHC Network Partner, Inc.                               Delaware

         BHC Network Partner II, Inc.                            Delaware

         BHC Network Partner III, Inc.                           Delaware

         KCOP Television, Inc.                                   California

         Oregon Television, Inc.                                 Oregon

Pinelands, Inc.                                                  Delaware

United Television, Inc.                                          Delaware

         UTV of San Francisco, Inc.                              California

         UTV of San Antonio, Inc.                                Texas

         UTV of Baltimore, Inc.                                  Delaware

         United Television Sales, Inc.                           Delaware
# ~
. RULE 206. 

### CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT

OR PERMIT TO OPERATE : The Control Officer may issue an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate, subject to 

### specified written conditions which will bring the operation of any machine, article, equipment or other contrivance within the standards of Rule 205. Commencing operation under such a Permit to Operate shall be deemed acceptance of all the 

### specified conditions. The Control Officer shall issue a Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receipt of a new application, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine, equipment or other contrivance.s can operate within the standards of Rule 205 under the revised conditions.

RULE 207. 

### DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS

. In the event of denial of an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate, the Control Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons therefor. Service of this notification may be made in person or my mail, and such service may be proved by the written acknowledgment of the persons served or affidavit of the person making the service. The Control Officer shall not accept a furtherapplication unless the applicant has complied with the objections specified by him as his reasons for denial of the Authority to Construct or the Permit to Operate.

(
#### State v. Nagao

19866

3/19/97

Vacated and Remanded
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



The undersigned directors of Sky Financial Group, Inc. hereby authorize and
appoint Marty E. Adams, Chairman, President and C.E.O., and/or Kevin T. Thompson, Executive Vice President and C.F.O., as our agents, as attorneys-in-fact, with full power to act for us and all of us, for the purpose of subscribing our names to the
Form 10-K thereof to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for the purpose of making any changes or amendments necessary or desirable to such documents and to any documents ancillary thereto, with the same powers and to the same
effect as we may do if personally present:



Signed in counterpart
and dated this 19th day of February, 2003.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ George N. Chandler II George N. Chandler II
|                                               
|/s/ D. James Hilliker D. James Hilliker        
|                                               
|Fred H. Johnson, III                           
|                                               
|/s/ James C. McBane James C. McBane            
|                                               
|/s/ Thomas J. OShane Thomas J. OShane        
|                                               
|/s/ Gregory L. Ridler Gregory L. Ridler        
|                                               
|/s/ C. Gregory Spangler C. Gregory Spangler    
|                                               
|/s/ Joseph N. Tosh, II Joseph N. Tosh, II
EXHIBIT 10.14

                         TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
       GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC. & AFFILIATED COMPANIES 401(K) PLAN


     WHEREAS, Giant Industries, Inc. (the "Corporation") has adopted
and subsequently amended and restated the Giant Industries, Inc. &
Affiliated Companies 401(k) Plan (the "Giant Plan"), in the form of The
CORPORATEplan for RetirementSM Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan Fidelity
Basic Plan Document No. 02 (a prototype plan sponsored by Fidelity
Management and Research Corporation), by executing an Adoption
Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, Section 16.02 of The CORPORATEplan for RetirementSM
Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan Fidelity Basic Plan Document No. 02 provides
for the amendment of the Plan by the Employer; and

     NOW THEREFORE,

     1.  Effective January 1, 2007, Section 1.23(c)(1) is amended by
substituting the following for the language that immediately follows
Section 1.23(c)(1):

          Effective January 1, 2007, any Participant may direct the
          Trustee regarding the investment of all or part of the
          amounts that have been allocated to the Participant's
          Account.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Employer has caused this amendment to be
executed this 29th day of December, 2006 by its duly authorized
officer, effective as stated herein.

                                         GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                         By: /s/ NATALIE R. DOPP
                                            ------------------------
                                         Title: VP, Human Resources
                                               ---------------------
# C_2021217EN.01001201.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften

(Case C-868/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value-added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable persons - Article 11 - Option for the Member States to treat as a single taxable person persons who are independent from a legal point of view but are closely linked to one another financially, economically and organisationally (‘VAT group’) - Concept of ‘close financial links’ - National legislation according to which partnerships, whose partners, alongside the controlling company, are not solely financially integrated persons in the undertaking of the controlling company, are prevented from being a member of a VAT group - Legal certainty - Preventative measures against fraud and tax evasion - Proportionality - VAT neutrality)

(2021/C 217/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in light of the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law which makes the option for a partnership to create, alongside the undertaking of the controlling company, a group of persons which may be considered to be a single taxable person for value added tax, on the condition that the partners in the partnership, alongside the controlling company, are solely persons who are financially integrated in that undertaking.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---